General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWorld set for climate disaster, say activists, as Lima talks falter
The proposals, still under discussion on Saturday, a day after the talks were scheduled to end, were too weak to keep global warming to the agreed limit of two degrees above preindustrial levels, setting the world on course to a climate disaster, according to developing countries at the summit.
“We are on a path to three or four degrees with this outcome,” said Tasneem Essop, international climate strategist for WWF.
She said the final draft text, a five-page document put forward for approval on Saturday, offered little assurance of cutting emissions fast enough and deeply enough to curb warming. “We are really unhappy about the weakening of the text. This gives us no level of comfort that we will be able to close the emissions gap to get emissions to peak before 2020,” she said. Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development, put it even more succinctly: “It sucks. It is taking us backwards.”
THE REST:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/13/world-climate-disaster-lima-talks-fail
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)I have a sense of how major disasters happen -- a refusal to think ahead or to see ahead or to understand consequences. A refusal to accept science or to accept experience or to accept common sense! We are ready to destroy ourselves. One of my neighbor said she was putting dry food packets into a closet to be 'ready'. I asked her about water to reconstitute the food, gas or electric to cook the food. She was not happy with me!
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)"Campaigners said the plan was far too weak to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels, or to protect poor countries from climate change"
karynnj
(59,501 posts)There are agreements here where countries are at least moving in the correct direction. This is the first time where there is agreement that ALL countries need to ask and that there is fund to help the poorer nations make the changes. Compared to expectations - that nothing was going to happen - this is positive.
One reason the activists are and will continue to be unhappy is that the agreement does not require commitments that countries need to ratify. This is because Obama CAN get the US to meet our commitment by the things that he can do via the EPA and through encouraging states and companies to do things that help that are to their advantage to do. He CAN NOT get any treaty on this past the Republican Congress. (They could not even get it through the Senate when we had 59 Senators - even though there were Republicans in support. )
The US/China pact is a big deal. On both sides, there is even the possibility that moving in that direction will actually end up with them doing more than committed. This is what happened when the US fought acid rain.
This is certainly NOT to criticize the activists who are genuinely working on moving from fossil fuels. They provide a lot of the energy needed for change. I have been surprised at the increase I have seen in the number of people putting solar panels on their roof (or elsewhere on their property). I was also intrigued to learn that one company that has installed them on homes and businesses is considering a model based on CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) where people who live in houses where the solar panels don't work or apartments or condominiums) can buy a "share" and the energy the solar panels add to the power grid is credited against their energy usage. If this actually happens, it will allow more people to put their values behind their energy choices.
